My convert_me Challenge

[packbat]

I posted this on convert_me, but when I was writing it, I realized that I wanted such a statement of my beliefs to appear on my own journal as well. Here it is.

I found convert_me via lovecrafty's post about liberal Christianity, and thinking about it, I realized that I would like to issue a convert_me challenge. The truth is extremely important to me, and I realized that it would be wise of me to put myself before intelligent people who disagree with me, in hopes that I will be corrected in my errors.

Hi. I'm packbat, an American, a humanist, and a strong atheist.

I grew up in a house where religion wasn't a big issue. To this day, I don't know the religious beliefs of my parents – I know my dad describes himself as an agnostic to telephone surveyors, and we usually 'hold hands' before meals, but at no point were we members of a church.

When the time came for me to think about it – probably in association with my membership in Scouts – I knew that I didn't believe in God. It was never an issue in my troop (my stock phrase is "I'm not religious"), and when the Eagle board of review wanted recommendation letters, I got one from a Unitarian Universalist minister (a very nice lady, who apparently was satisfied with my deep respect for Nature and respectful attitude towards the beliefs of others). When, in a university honors seminar on the separation of church and state, everyone was stating their religions, I said "agnostic", meaning ätheist*, i.e. weak atheist.

However, probably about a year ago, I joined the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I initially joined to comment on the Formal Debates held on that board. But I got sucked into the discussions in the Existence of God(s) forum, and the General Religious Discussions forum, and the Philosophy forum, and ended up discovering a lot – not the least of which is, I apparently am better at figuring out what folk are saying than most people there. It was chiefly what I learned about epistemology, though, that convinced me to believe that there's no gods out there.

Today, I don't go on that board any more. But I still think about religion, and my conclusions from there still, mostly, stand.

Getting down to brass tacks, though, here is what I believe.

I believe the universe makes sense. I believe that everything, from quarks to Murray Gell-Mann to the far reaches of space itself, operate according to principles, and that even if those principles are nondeterministic (as quantum mechanics implies), they are not rules that can be broken. I believe that Descartes was right when he claimed that no being able to solipsistically fool you into thinking the universe existed, would. I believe that absolute certitude is not required, and it makes sense to believe statements that could be false.

I believe that if something is true, then there is probably evidence for it. I believe that if something as big as the existence of an active god was true, there'd be bucketloads of evidence for it. I believe that if there was even just a Prime Mover, there'd be plenty of evidence for it. I believe that the absence of expected evidence is evidence against. I believe that the expected evidence for gods is absent. I believe no gods exist.

I believe that minds are natural phenomena, that they represent the workings of the brain, just as text represents words. I believe that no nonmaterial substrate is needed to 'power' a mind. I believe minds are as ruled by the laws of nature as everything else. I believe it still makes sense to claim I have free will, in spite of that.

I believe ethics arise from human nature. I believe that empathy is the basis of moral good, and that the growth of morality comes from the recognition that our genetic kin aren't the only ones who deserve empathy.

I believe the responsibility of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. I believe life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are such rights. I believe social programs like welfare, subsidized housing, and public health care support those rights.

Convert me.

* "Ätheist" is a term approximately synonymous with "weak atheist" invented by a member on convert_me, and commonly employed there. That is why I included it.

---

Edit 2009-03-19: The convert_me post is here. I have since left the community.

Comments

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

The truth is extremely important to me, and I realized that it would be wise of me to put myself before intelligent people who disagree with me, in hopes that I will be corrected in my errors.

You presume that you have made errors?

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Dude, have you seen my vibrations midterm? ;)

(I don't, really, on these issues, but I consider it essential to remember that I may have.)

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. Do you have any disquiet whatsoever about your cosmology? Anything that you can't make sense of? Any niggling little loose ends hanging out? Or do you, when looking at your own philosophical set, feel perfectly satisfied with all that you see?

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Well, there are things I don't know or don't understand. However, I can comfortably handle that uncertainty within my worldview – I don't need to be able to explain everything to live, and so far, I've seen nothing which cannot be compatible with my core beliefs.

Yeah, I'm pretty satisfied philosophically.

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

So, if I may ask, why on Earth do you want to be converted to anything?

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't, really. But if I am wrong, issuing this challenge is an invitation for people who are right to correct me.

(Also, the 'convert me' thing is the purpose of the LJ comm. that I wrote this for.)

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

I see.

So what criteria are you planning on using to determine who is "right"?

[packbat.livejournal.com]

My reason, pretty much. :)

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

So, in order to "convert" you, someone would need to point out some sort of logical fallacy in your belief that their particular brand of theism covers better than your current paradigm, which you admittedly feel is pretty much airtight.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Or facts that cannot be reasonably explained in my paradigm but can be in theirs. Yes, that's correct.

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

I think I understand.

Mind you, that's as far as this goes. I'm not trying to make an argument or to answer your "challenge", as I doubt my ability to meet your terms. Nonetheless, if you have any questions for, or merely wish to knock ideas around with, someone from the theistic area, my mailbox is (exeptionally spammy but) open; address's on the profile page.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And hey – if you ever want to ask questions of or bounce ideas off an atheist, I'm glad to reciprocate – my email's on my profile too.

[feech.livejournal.com]

"I believe that if something is true, then there is probably evidence for it. I believe that if something as big as the existence of an active god was true, there'd be bucketloads of evidence for it. I believe that if there was even just a Prime Mover, there'd be plenty of evidence for it. I believe that the absence of expected evidence is evidence against. I believe that the expected evidence for gods is absent. I believe no gods exist."

What is a "god", what is the difference between one god and many, practically speaking; what constitutes evidence for a god or gods, what's different about expected evidence for one god versus many gods?

What evidence is expected and not found, in your experience?

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Good questions. I guess a god is a being which can control the laws of nature to effect its will. There's nothing in that which prohibits there being more than one being capable of it, and should multiple gods exist, they may act independently or cooperate imperfectly.

Evidence for gods would consist of manipulations of nature towards a purpose. Granted prayers, smiting of infidels, and other series of coincidences or miracles visibly directed to a purpose would be examples of evidence. There's no guarantee that the actions of many gods would differ from the actions of one, but if they acted with consistently different goals or methods, it would present evidence for that.

What evidence would I expect for an active god? Just what I said above: series of coincidences or miracles visibly directed to a purpose. If sailors who didn't sacrifice goats to Poseidon before sailing consistently drowned, then there'd be evidence that somebody with extraordinary powers wanted sailors to make sacrifices to Poseidon. In my opinion, that's the sort of evidence scientists are looking for when they do prayer experiments, and not finding.

For a non-active creator god, say, I'd expect evidence that the universe and its laws of nature were designed to serve a purpose. No such purpose is clear, examining the parts of the universe we can see.

[thethirdvoice.livejournal.com]

It is hard to tell if any thing 'miraculous' happens on a regular basis, as you would perceive it as normal. There are things which cannot be explained, and it is not known if science will explain them.

If there are 'obvious' interventions, they may not happen in a human timespan, as god/s are not human. This also applies to a 'purpose' - an ant (if it could think) may think that a house is natural, as it serves no obvious 'purpose' in the understanding/context of an ant.

This is why I am agnostic - there is no conclusive argument that I can see for atheism, so it is a matter of faith, which in the absence of god/s seems meaningless.

[lovecraftcomplex]

This is why I am agnostic - there is no conclusive argument that I can see for atheism, so it is a matter of faith, which in the absence of god/s seems meaningless.

That doesn't actually make sense. There's no conclusive argument for theism, which is the extraordinary claim. It's not a matter of faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. It does not, for example, take faith to not believe in Santa Claus.

I always find it odd when people assume a case must be made for atheism. Only with the God hypothesis do people regularly insist that the extraordinary claim is the foregone conclusion and must be dismissed despite the lack of supporting evidence for the claim.

[thethirdvoice.livejournal.com]

I agree that there is no conclusive argument for theism either, but theists can claim divine inspiration or that they can feel that there is a god as a basis for belief.

Santa Claus is not comparable, as there is evidence that there is no Santa Claus, and there is nothing observable which Santa Claus' existence would explain.

[lovecraftcomplex]

1) One can't claim divine inspiration without proof of the divine, as that would be circular reasoning. That theists are capable of being illogical and delusional is hardly evidence of their case.

2) The intuitive sensastion ("feeling") of God has a naturalist explanation, and while a person can certainly ignore that evidence and claim they believe in God because of a feeling, this is not even remotely a rational position. This a position of faith. Atheism is not a position of faith, because atheism is not predicated on "feelings", but rather the complete failure of theists to make any sort of sensible case for the existence of God.

3) The only reason there is no evidence against God is this: The theists have continously altered the definition of God to account for the lack of evidence. If we allowed the believers in Santa Claus this luxury, of redefining their claims as their claims are disproven, then Santa Claus would be perfectly comparable.

4) The God hypothesis offers no explanation for any observable phenomenon.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

It is hard to tell if any thing 'miraculous' happens on a regular basis, as you would perceive it as normal.

Perhaps, but miracles are a distinctly different kind of phenomenon than natural ones. Compare, say, the way objects fall in a gravitational field to my example of sacrifices to Poseidon. The causal relationship is very mechanical in the first case, and, well, more like human interactions in the latter. Especially if, say, sacrifices to Perseus don't work.

As for the other part, I have to agree with lovecrafty: theism seems like a pretty absurd theory, and without evidence, I feel safe assuming it's false.

[lovecraftcomplex]

Well, I basically agree with your position.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Really?

Cool.

[lovecraftcomplex]

I could argue the politics bit with you (I'm a libertarian-socialist), but I have a paper to write.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Just comment anytime, then – I'd be glad to carry out an informal discussion when you're less busy.